Khan v Trident Safeguards Ltd & Ors [2005] UKEAT 0458_02_0605 (6 May 2005)

Khan v Trident Safeguards Ltd & Ors [2005] UKEAT 0458_02_0605 (6 May 2005)

The interlocutory hearing was not a pre-hearing review under Rule 7; Tribunal's findings on discrimination and victimisation were supported by evidence and reasoning; no procedural or legal error occurred; costs orders and dismissal of claims were justified.

Citation
[2005] UKEAT 0458_02_0605
Parties
Appellant: Arfan Khan; First Respondent: Trident Safeguards Limited; Second Respondent: North British Housing; Third Respondent: Mr P Noke; Fourth Respondent: Ms J Rodgers; Second Respondent (appeal 1413/01): Mr Robert Shaw; Third Respondent (appeal 1413/01): Mr A King; Fourth Respondent (appeal 1413/01): Mr J Wright; Fifth Respondent (appeal 1413/01): Mr M Harman
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Consolidated Appeals / Full Hearing After Remittal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Unfair Dismissal, Costs Orders, Procedural Fairness, Bias
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Victimisation Unfair Dismissal Costs Orders Procedural Fairness Bias

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arfan Khan

Appellant

Trident Safeguards Limited

First Respondent

North British Housing

Second Respondent

Mr P Noke

Third Respondent

Ms J Rodgers

Fourth Respondent

Mr Robert Shaw

Second Respondent (appeal 1413/01)

Mr A King

Third Respondent (appeal 1413/01)

Mr J Wright

Fourth Respondent (appeal 1413/01)

Mr M Harman

Fifth Respondent (appeal 1413/01)

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Consolidated Appeals / Full Hearing After Remittal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory hearing was a pre-hearing review under Rule 7
  2. 2 Whether Tribunal erred in findings on race discrimination and victimisation
  3. 3 Adequacy of Tribunal reasoning (Meek/Anya compliance)

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory hearing was not a pre-hearing review under Rule 7; Tribunal's findings on discrimination and victimisation were supported by evidence and reasoning; no procedural or legal error occurred; costs orders and dismissal of claims were justified.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Costs orders in favour of Respondents upheld
  • Tribunal decisions on discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal stand